[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180309111134.6854a2a5@ThinkPad>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 11:11:34 +0100
From: Philipp Rudo <prudo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc: kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] kexec_file: Move purgatories sha256 to common
code
Hi Dave,
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:43:53 +0800
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 02/26/18 at 04:16pm, Philipp Rudo wrote:
> > The code to verify the new kernels sha digest are applicable for all
> > architectures. Move it to common code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Rudo <prudo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/purgatory/Makefile | 3 +++
> > arch/x86/purgatory/purgatory.c | 2 +-
> > {arch/x86/purgatory => include/linux}/sha256.h | 10 +++++++++-
> > {arch/x86/purgatory => lib}/sha256.c | 4 ++--
> > 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > rename {arch/x86/purgatory => include/linux}/sha256.h (63%)
> > rename {arch/x86/purgatory => lib}/sha256.c (99%)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/purgatory/Makefile b/arch/x86/purgatory/Makefile
> > index 2f15a2ac4209..414eed6b5065 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/purgatory/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/x86/purgatory/Makefile
> > @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@ purgatory-y := purgatory.o stack.o setup-x86_$(BITS).o sha256.o entry64.o string
> > targets += $(purgatory-y)
> > PURGATORY_OBJS = $(addprefix $(obj)/,$(purgatory-y))
> >
> > +$(obj)/sha256.o: $(srctree)/lib/sha256.c
> > + $(call if_changed_rule,cc_o_c)
> > +
> > LDFLAGS_purgatory.ro := -e purgatory_start -r --no-undefined -nostdlib -z nodefaultlib
> > targets += purgatory.ro
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/purgatory/purgatory.c b/arch/x86/purgatory/purgatory.c
> > index 470edad96bb9..025c34ac0d84 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/purgatory/purgatory.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/purgatory/purgatory.c
> > @@ -11,9 +11,9 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/bug.h>
> > +#include <linux/sha256.h>
> > #include <asm/purgatory.h>
> >
> > -#include "sha256.h"
> > #include "../boot/string.h"
> >
> > unsigned long purgatory_backup_dest __section(.kexec-purgatory);
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/purgatory/sha256.h b/include/linux/sha256.h
> > similarity index 63%
> > rename from arch/x86/purgatory/sha256.h
> > rename to include/linux/sha256.h
> > index 2867d9825a57..43a20ac33688 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/purgatory/sha256.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sha256.h
> > @@ -13,9 +13,17 @@
> > #include <linux/types.h>
> > #include <crypto/sha.h>
> >
> > +/* Stand-alone implementation of the SHA256 algorithm. It is designed to
> > + * have as little dependencies as possible so it can be used in the
> > + * kexec_file purgatory. In other cases you should use the implementation in
> > + * crypto/.
> > + *
> > + * For details see lib/sha256.c
> > + */
>
> should move to use preferred comment format:
> /*
> * Stand-alone ...
> * ...
> */
Fixed it.
> > +
> > extern int sha256_init(struct sha256_state *sctx);
> > extern int sha256_update(struct sha256_state *sctx, const u8 *input,
> > - unsigned int length);
> > + unsigned int length);
> > extern int sha256_final(struct sha256_state *sctx, u8 *hash);
> >
> > #endif /* SHA256_H */
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/purgatory/sha256.c b/lib/sha256.c
> > similarity index 99%
> > rename from arch/x86/purgatory/sha256.c
> > rename to lib/sha256.c
> > index 548ca675a14a..4400c832e2aa 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/purgatory/sha256.c
> > +++ b/lib/sha256.c
> > @@ -16,9 +16,9 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/bitops.h>
> > +#include <linux/sha256.h>
> > +#include <linux/string.h>
> > #include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > -#include "sha256.h"
> > -#include "../boot/string.h"
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure if moving to linux/string.h will have some side
> effects..
Hmm, according to your other mail you are right. I'll have a closer look at it.
Thanks
Philipp
> >
> > static inline u32 Ch(u32 x, u32 y, u32 z)
> > {
> > --
> > 2.13.5
> >
>
> Thanks
> Dave
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists